Nature Communications ‘blinks’ over slimy climate blacklist from @UCmerced authors

It seems like our complaints (and complaints from hundreds of others) are having an impact, this was just added to the peer Reviewed article Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians on the Nature Communications website. This was just posted:

16 August 2019 Editorial Note:

This is an update of an editorial note issued on August 15. Readers are alerted that the editors are aware of a number of criticisms related to this work. These criticisms are being considered by the editors. The Supplementary Information for this Article is currently unavailable due to concerns regarding the identification of individuals. We will publish an update once our investigation is complete.

Even normally reserved climate scientist Dr. Richard Betts is calling for this article to be retracted:

I may very well join Monckton in starting a legal battle over this paper, in the case of Dr. Peter Ridd, we raised over a quarter million dollars in a matters of days, and he won that case.

Right now, I’m pissed off. Hopefully Nature Communications will see the light or the authors will before we take that next step.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 16, 2019 3:39 pm

It looks like this could turn into an embarrassing over-reach for the Climate Alarmist and Global Warming Faction.

Curious George
August 16, 2019 3:41 pm

Why doesn’t blink the UC Merced?

Reply to  Curious George
August 16, 2019 5:57 pm

In order for UC Merced to blink, they must first open their eyes.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
August 17, 2019 10:08 am

Academics are playing the game in California, where everything is rigged in Sacramento. It started long before AB32 was signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, the greenhouse gas law that required energy producers to include “renewable” energy at increasing percentages of generation capacity. For example, the California Energy Commission was buying research to support its political agenda. These days it is necessary to genuflect in the climate religion, to at least make statements of support in your publications for the dogma, but hopefully publish good work regardless.

Good work from UC Merced includes watershed and groundwater studies, forest health, predictions of runoff from snowfall. Some of the results may gall the Sierra Club. Politicians still fear them to some extent. Catastrophic fires like the Rim fire in and near Yosemite, and the Camp fire in Paradise, CA are beginning to reveal the fallacy of Sierra Club politics to the general public.

Coastal Californians have been lied to for so long, sacred cows of “hands off the forest” are hard to kill. Thinning does reduce fuel and severity of a wildfire. It also increases biodiversity. Studies show the higher density of trees leads to competition and shortage of groundwater, which leads to less sap production and greater risk of infestation by bark beetles. We now have over 6-fold higher tree density in many national forests than were present in the forest before fire suppression became the general practice. Most forested areas in CA are mapped to very high fire hazard.

Native Americans routinely burned the underbrush of the forests during or near winter to reduce fire hazard and to maintain open areas for diverse plants to grow, and grazing for animals they depended upon. The forests John Muir saw were maintained by man.

Sacramento and others who merely repeat the propaganda love to blame poor forest health on “climate change”, but in fact, it’s forest mismanagement that has caused the problems we see today in the Sierra Nevada.


Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Hoser
August 17, 2019 12:18 pm

Spot on.
Fires are not only desirable but necessary and inevitable.
Putting out small fires guarantees more destructive hot fires that can reach the crowns of the trees will occur eventually. It is only a matter of time.
Building houses with flammable walls and roofs is the second dumb thing that has been allowed to take place.
Few roads that are small and narrow and not cleared on the sides completes the firetrap.

Taylor Pohlman
August 16, 2019 3:45 pm

Would be very interesting to see the list of ‘peer reviewers,’ given all the comments, particularly the one you cite from Dr. Betts. ‘Sunshine is the best disinfectant’ (and alto likely the driver for warming, chortle, chortle)

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
August 16, 2019 4:43 pm

Good point, Taylor. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The peer-reviewers who approved this defamatory “name-naming” paper should, themselves, have their names named.

John Tillman
August 16, 2019 3:47 pm

Good comments in reply to Dr. Betts’ excellent tweet on the bird feed.

August 16, 2019 3:51 pm

Just have to love it.

Its is FRAME-WORTHY when the lost-their-marbles Left get called out for breaking their own so-vaunted, so-defended code of ethics.

Chalk one up to WUWT.
GoatGuy ✓

Reply to  GoatGuy
August 16, 2019 10:44 pm

The L-T-M Left have liberated themselves from “outmoded” things like rules and standards and norms. Leftist ethics is an oxymoron.

August 16, 2019 3:52 pm

Any one on the Contrarian list needs to get a good class action lawyer involved and sue the hell out of them for “Reckless Endangerment”. Given the propensity of the rabid alarmists to go after anyone, even physically, who disagrees with them, this “exposure” is a direct endangerment of those individuals.

Reply to  Yooper
August 16, 2019 6:26 pm


Reply to  Yooper
August 17, 2019 6:52 am

The number of people who have lost jobs when it’s discovered that they don’t hoe the climate change line is large and growing.

J Mac
August 16, 2019 3:55 pm

When the lights come on, cockroaches run for cover.
My sincerest hope is MoB succeeds in his legal efforts to discipline these $&#%@ smearing skunks.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  J Mac
August 16, 2019 5:52 pm

J Mac

Reminds me of a hotel my wife and I checked into in downtown NYC many years ago. I went into the bathroom, turned on the light, and the walls went from brown to yellow in a matter of seconds!

J Mac
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
August 16, 2019 8:36 pm

I know what you mean. I’ve stayed in a dive motel or two, when I was young and desperate for sleep after a long drive. I used to run occasional loads of livestock cross country for cash, when I was in college. I was just about asleep in a Pennsylvania motel when I heard an odd, light ‘drumming’ sound. I turned the light on to find a looong centipede going across the wall paper near the bed. I smashed it with my boot and went to sleep…. I’ve been a light sleeper ever since.

Dave Fair
Reply to  J Mac
August 16, 2019 8:41 pm

I actually stayed at the No Tell Motel in Eugene, OR.

Reply to  Dave Fair
August 17, 2019 6:53 am

Quit bragging.

Reply to  J Mac
August 17, 2019 11:57 am

OT — in the mid-50s, my parents stayed with me at a cheap motel down south. The room was OK, but when we went outside in the morning, the entire walkway in front of the motel rooms was completely brown with daddy long leg spiders.

Reply to  littlepeaks
August 18, 2019 2:47 am

That is known as “tropical high diversity”, it comes with the planet.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  J Mac
August 17, 2019 5:01 pm

J Mac,
I too have sometimes stayed in a dive because I was desperate for a place to sleep. The irony is, we had bought a package tour to NYC that included hotel accommodations, tickets to the Broadway play, Cactus Flower, and reservations at the Copa Cabana. The hotel had a very nice looking lobby, but when we got off the elevator on our floor, the ‘decor,’ such as it was, was similar to a low-income housing, minus the graffiti. The whole trip was a disaster. But, I won’t waste space with the details.

August 16, 2019 3:55 pm

In my humble opinion Richard Betts and the many others who have been libelled by this paper should proceed directly to sue those responsible. Publication in this widely read journal must surely constitute libel in many jurisdictions, and their gross claims to cause consequent damage to the reputation of those named. Retraction of the paper after the damage has been done is clearly not sufficient, except that Monckton of Brenchley has taken the gentlemanly approach in this case. Others may not choose to be so sporting.

August 16, 2019 4:15 pm

They’ve taken down the lists of “scientists” (alarmists) and “contrarians,” but not before Ken Rice at ATTP (and probably others) found them:

August 16, 2019 4:46 pm


Like many New Zealanders, I am guilty of too much reliance on profanities as figures of speech, which betrays laziness of expression, and dilutes their effectiveness through over-use.

You are more disciplined. Which is why you so have so successfully ended this post. It is the only time that I have seen you use the phrase “pissed off”.

Well said, Mr Watts

John Tillman
Reply to  John Johnston
August 16, 2019 6:15 pm

Still, “ticked off” would have been preferred.

Reply to  John Tillman
August 16, 2019 6:21 pm

Nope. Profanity is like spanking a child as punishment. If it’s very rare, it works. If it used by default, it is brutal, ineffective and destructive.

Anthony nailed it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Tillman
August 16, 2019 7:48 pm

“Angry” works.

Are you listening Sean Hannity? Hannity used to worry about the debasement of /society/culture through the normalizations of such curse words. Now he uses it all the time! Sean Hannity has normalized this word. Good work, Sean.

There are a lot more curse words that need normalizing so Sean has his work cut out for him, although Hollywood is working hard in that “undermining society’s values” direction. It is a wonder anyone can even think straight after watching the moral depavity that passes for entertainment on tv and in the movies and rap videos, and every other means of communication today. All they do is attack traditional values and promote greed and violence.

Those who think it is ok to use that word have been “normalized”, and I think our society is a little poorer for it.

I can curse like a sailor, but I don’t normally do it where it would offend others, if I can help it.

For those who don’t think it is a big deal, don’t worry about it. There’s no reason to change your behavior because I’m afraid this particular horse is already out the barn door and has been deemed acceptable, by some.

Howard Dewhirst
August 16, 2019 4:53 pm

MIT have come under a similar barrage, with long time funder of MIT, Jerry Katell withdrawing his funding following The May/June issue (of MIT Technology Review) dubbed The Climate Issue, which he calls ‘the most unscientific, ungrounded and embarrassment to MIT I have ever seen.’ It seems that over-reach is beginning to pull the stitching out from the fabric of the IPCC flag everywhere.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
August 16, 2019 7:51 pm

Thanks for sharing that story.

I used to subscribe to Technology Review, too, but not any more. 🙂

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 17, 2019 12:20 pm

It was one of many I found myself unable to put up with.

Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
August 16, 2019 10:57 pm

It would be hard for MIT to outdo their climate roulette wheel of 2009, which I initially took to be a joke:

It was not a joke. More accurately, it was a joke, but not an intentional one.

Ian W
August 16, 2019 4:55 pm

“Nullius in Verba”

I thought that the entire point of ‘science’ was to not take people’s word for it and be skeptical of the prognostications of ‘experts’ and to attempt to falsify their hypotheses. As such an article painting individuals who disagree as ‘contrarians’ is anti-science.
As Feynman said:

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”

But nowadays – “argumentum ab auctoritate” (appeal to authority) seems to be de-rigeur

John Tillman
Reply to  Ian W
August 16, 2019 6:19 pm

The modern scientific revolution began when Copernicus dared to challenge the consensus that the sun goes around the earth, supported not only by the Bible, but ancient Greek and Roman astronomers.

The argument from authority was deemed a logical fallacy from the time of Galileo until Hansen’s testimony (not that that is the right word) to Congress in 1988.

Reply to  Ian W
August 16, 2019 11:05 pm

Argumentum ad hominem is the Climate Disasterists’ #1 defense. Argumentum ab auctoritate is still in the top five.

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
August 17, 2019 1:33 am

Actually, the mediaeval schoolmen used the term argumentum ad verecundiam for the logical fallacy of argument from authority. The argument from “expert consensus”, which is the climate extremists’ first line of defense, is thus a conflation of two fallacies: the argumentum ad verecundiam and the argumentum ad populum – the reputation and headcount fallacies.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 18, 2019 10:49 am

In other words, argumentum e stoliditatis might fit the conflation best, thus ushering in the formal era of new logical fallacies.

Nature Communications has set the bar high [low?] in this new era, and so they might be a tough act to follow.

Has anybody looked at the background of the editors? If no, then go look now. Either they know better and simply ignore their expertise, or the higher degrees that they supposedly earned represent nothing of their understanding of their respective disciplines, indicating a monumental failure of the modern education system.

Nature Communications is an open access journal that publishes high-quality research from all areas of the natural sciences. Papers published by the journal represent important advances of significance to specialists within each field.

So, the article is a joke, right?

The word, “incompetence”, seems glaring in my thoughts.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
August 18, 2019 11:28 am

Interesting and insightful. One should be mindful of another tradition which seems amalgamated into what is fast becoming a stew : Push Poll.

David L Hagen
August 16, 2019 5:01 pm

Nature Communications has taken up the baton of Trofim Lysenko to advocate dictatorial political control over science. Just a change of field and pjoratives and Lysenkoism has morphed into Climate Science. See Nature Review 2009’s classic article on Lysenkoism!
Soyfer VN. The consequences of political dictatorship for Russian science
Nature Reviews Genetics. 2001 Sep;2(9):723.

“Lysenko and his followers declared that genetics was a deleterious perversion of science, which impeded the efforts of Soviet scientists to change the animal and plant world…” . . .
The intervention of the Communist leaders into science in the USSR was a particular phenomenon in the history of science in the twentieth century, comparable only with the events that took place in Nazi Germany. It is qualitatively different from the sort of everyday ‘politics’ in which all scientists, everwhere, engage. The most tragic consequence of totalitarian rule was the persecution of those scientists who were unable to unconditionally agree with the Party’s decrees or tried to dispute its decisions. These personal tragedies of many outstanding scientists in the USSR led to much deeper and wider effects. The progress of science was slowed or stopped, and millions of university and high school students received a distorted education. A comparable example of the devastating influence of politicization of society was the Nazis’ destruction of science in fascist Germany after 1933. Thousands of scientists, especially those of Jewish origins, were forced to leave Germany. Nevertheless, the mass arrests of scientists in the Soviet Union had much worse consequences for science. In my opinion, it was the most tragic event in the history of science. It demonstrated the terrible effects of a political dictatorship, and showed that science should develop in free and open competition between scientists, without political intervention.

Reply to  David L Hagen
August 17, 2019 6:04 am

Great link David L Hagen. Thanks

August 16, 2019 5:02 pm

The latest in very bad taste and worse, horribly design and badly executed imitation of Lysenkoism research is following the 10:10 movie into extreme disrepute.

That is, back into the rock bottom slime from which it came.

Howard Dewhirst
August 16, 2019 5:05 pm

The Nature piece rather spoils the claim that 97% of scientists agree …

Michael Jankowski
August 16, 2019 5:06 pm

Kudos to Richard Betts.

Can you imagine 0.0001% of that reason, intelligence, and civility from, say, Michael Mann?

August 16, 2019 5:11 pm

‘Right now, I’m pissed off.’
Not good. Still…
it’s better than being pissed on.

Reply to  Photios
August 17, 2019 6:06 am


One follows the other, this case being no exception.

Reply to  Photios
August 17, 2019 6:41 am

Johnson was right then, but he wasn’t a scientist!

Rick C PE
August 16, 2019 5:24 pm

If anyone had any doubt about how worthless “peer-review” is, this paper should remove them. The fact that the editors of NATURE Communications even thought such rubbish was worthy of being reviewed/published demonstrates that the system is irretrievably broken.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rick C PE
August 16, 2019 5:55 pm

Rick C PE

Reply to  Rick C PE
August 16, 2019 6:40 pm

Everyone needs to know about the replication crisis. When replication is attempted, as many as 90% of published research findings are wrong. In a disturbing number of cases, the original researchers can not even reproduce their own results. Peer review is a sick joke.

There is no excuse for publishing work that can not be replicated. It’s not the fault of the scientists per se. They are stuck with the rules of the game as dictated to them by the ‘system’. The rules need to be changed with some urgency.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  commieBob
August 17, 2019 12:27 pm

Everyone also ought to have read the climategate emails, several of which described the plan to hijack the peer review process for the specific purpose of preventing dissenting voices from being heard.
Nowadays people speak as if peer review is or was meant to be a process of verification.
It is not, and never was that.
More like a sort of proof reading.
It has more to do with publishing than it does with the scientific method.
And now it is mostly a process of gatekeeping by highly biased people with a very definite agenda, and being even handed is no part of that agenda.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  commieBob
August 18, 2019 7:08 am

It really bothers me when a study finds a change in something and then concludes with no direct evidence that “climate change” is the reason.

Too many “population of bug “x” has declined due to higher temps” without investigating whether the population has merely migrated as an adaptation.

August 16, 2019 5:37 pm

On the previous thread, Willis mentioned that he had obtained the list and forwarded it to CTM in preparation for making it available for download. Is that still going to happen, or have events overtaken that plan?

On another thought: Anybody who files suit opens up the discovery process. Now that is worth the price of admission. Ar a minimum, we see who the reviewers were *and* their comments. Rich!

Reply to  TonyL
August 16, 2019 8:04 pm

Check the previous thread. I put the SI as a zip file in my public dropbox, and put the link at the end of the head post.


Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
August 16, 2019 10:06 pm

Thanks, Willis.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  TonyL
August 16, 2019 8:18 pm

I do not think simply filing a suit opens up discovery.
I think there must first be some procedural steps by the court to agree to take the case and delineate certain bounds.

August 16, 2019 5:41 pm

omg. Anthony Watts is a steady rock. If something has stirred him, its time to put the tin hat on and put the gum-shield in. Somebody is in for a bad time

Dave Fair
August 16, 2019 6:28 pm

Anthony, I assume you have the wherewithal to initiate and coordinate a concerted effort to eradicate the Nature Communication propaganda agenda. It is all-out war and I will support, financially, efforts to stop the de-platforming of scientific critics of CliSci.

August 16, 2019 6:33 pm

It Looks like they are right.
The Skeptic community is beating the Alarmists hands down. Bigly!
I downloaded the two lists, and they are a Great Read.
H/T to Dave Burton.
The Skeptics list is all names we have all come to know from hanging out here at WUWT. The top 100 are real power hitters known to us all, with many familiar names going way down. It is a real “Who’s Who” of the skeptic community. It also has a fair number of conventional warmists, which is the source of all the fuss.
The Alarmists list gets into Who is That? territory after about the first 25(!). That’s it, that’s all they have. The remaining names all the way down to 386 are a big “Huh?”.

I know I can not say too much, but maybe hitting on some highlights is OK.
(No, on second thought: If Anthony gives to OK to talk about the lists, we can have some fun with who made the cut, and who got robbed. Otherwise, discretion is the safe choice.)

Anthony, Mods: Safe to talk about the lists?

Reply to  TonyL
August 16, 2019 10:18 pm

TonyL here is another list which has many scientists and engineers who support Clexit (climate exit) Marc Marano is vice-president and Dr Nils-Axel Morner is a director. You will find my name there. I do not usually give my name to protect my daughter who is world known in her field and has been honored for discoveries in the medical field. However, it is time for those who understand heat transfer and other engineering sciences to standup to expose the lies of the climate alarmists.

August 16, 2019 6:46 pm

Where is the investigative reporting on the authors? Just this link from the paper was quite enlightening, but their ethics declaration in the paper says this doesn’t really matter. I mean, what has this guy been writing about? Ya think he was on a mission or what…… C’mon man!

If I was on the list, I would Michael Mann him.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ossqss
August 16, 2019 8:35 pm

The hubris shown by the authors is breathtaking. They believe and act on CliSci contempt of anyone not on the “Team.” They have Jumped the Shark into libel.

Michael Singleton
August 16, 2019 6:48 pm

Anthony I would willingly contribute to funding legal action if you chose to go that way

J Mac
Reply to  Michael Singleton
August 16, 2019 10:39 pm

I second the motion.
All in favor say ‘Aye’.

We have your back, Anthony. Let us know….

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  J Mac
August 17, 2019 5:08 pm

J Mac

Reply to  Michael Singleton
August 17, 2019 12:18 am


William Capron
Reply to  Michael Singleton
August 17, 2019 7:34 am

Anthony, I’m willing to put my money where your mouth is.

David Murray
Reply to  Michael Singleton
August 17, 2019 8:32 am

Me too. The perversion of science has to be stopped. Just as I miss Christopher Hitchins for his intellect and oratory when dealing with religious cults so I miss the extraordinary talent of Richard Feynman for dealing with the alarmists.

mike the morlock
August 16, 2019 7:07 pm

They make the data base. It would interesting to compare credentials notes witch ones have no bearing on earth sciences. Who would have more graduates of “Basket weaving” disciplines?


Mike of the North
August 16, 2019 7:51 pm

Someone should start a GoFundMe page to raise legal funds to pursue a libel suit. I would be in for $100.

August 16, 2019 8:07 pm

“These criticisms are being considered by the editors”

Really??? Considered???

How stupid are these ‘editors’ that they can’t simply read it through and go… WTF? Who approved this junk?

It doesn’t even approach the level that would have only just garnered a pass at my high school year 10 science.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkMcD
August 16, 2019 8:37 pm

They are “considering” so hard that they tried to disappear the libelous lists.

Reply to  MarkMcD
August 17, 2019 2:15 pm

But the graphs and charts are soooooooooo prettttttty.

Steven Mosher
August 16, 2019 8:08 pm

1. WUWT should arrange a team of auditors to check the Counts of the mentions in media as Willis
has done for himself.
2. Every individual who was miscounted should write an email to the authors demanding correction
of the DATA, with a copy to the editors.
3. If they fail to correct, then submit a letter ( Matters Arising to the journal) 386 of them.
4. If they fail to publish. Sue them

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 16, 2019 8:50 pm

Mosh –
The ‘study’ is sloppy. It is atrocious in its expression of patent bias. It is a hack job. Nobody really cares about the claims for “counts in media outlets” anyway.

It is immensely clear that the establishment media supports “mainstream climate science” and shuns all dissenting opinions.

It is only due to independent blogs like this one that an alternate viewpoint is even aired.

In addition to being sloppy and an atrocious example of confirmation bias, this paper crosses the boundary lines for slander. You would appear to be in denial of this simple conclusion.

Or are you afraid to state anything which might be frowned upon in certain circles?

Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
August 17, 2019 3:02 pm

In addition to being sloppy and an atrocious example of confirmation bias, this paper crosses the boundary lines for slander. You would appear to be in denial of this simple conclusion.

You mean because “Mosher” said this?

4. If they fail to publish. Sue them

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 17, 2019 12:23 am

I’m with Kurt on this. By any criteria it has little merit as a piece of scholarship and to start niggling about the detail gives it a respectability it doesn’t deserve. I trust you can see that.

The thing that worries me though is that I see from other comments you’ve made on it that despite your misgivings in the detail you think it states some truths. I’d be more sceptical of the various propostions if they were properly specified, but that’s the kind of attitude that caused all this to begin with and you may well not agree.

steven mosher
Reply to  HAS
August 17, 2019 4:19 am

sorry HAS im with me.

my track record on these types of things beats yours.

use their process first.
and watch for process “crimes”as well.

the take down of the lists is prima facia evidence they (edited. mod) up.

Reply to  steven mosher
August 17, 2019 2:24 pm

I guess that if you are only good at mucking around in the detail, and are happy doing that, you should stick to it. Dealing to the system that generates this rubbish after all requires a degree of ability to abstract that not everyone has.

Reply to  HAS
August 18, 2019 11:41 am

I’m with Mosher on this one. While I agree that the slandering of Skeptics is an issue, the Climate Faithful will only see it as ‘Of course the Deniers who are Named and Shamed are upset about it. That just proves they’re guilty.’ Hell, considering how quickly they pulled the supplement info, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the plan all along. Now they can act all virtuous about following the rules and leaving out the names, safe in the knowledge that everyone who needs it has a copy and can use it whenever they need.

From the Faithful’s prospective, the issues with the data mining that Willis discovered are far more serious. Their whole point with this study was to prove that ‘ contrarians’ get more media coverage then is warranted by their ‘expertise’. But not only were the lists unbalanced and contrived, but it looks like EVEN USEING THEIR LISTS in a replication effort, you won’t get their media coverage figures because the ‘media mentions’ they count include many false positives and examples of others (like Sou or ATTP) THEMSELVES Naming and Shameing Skeptics.

Think about that a minute. Their proof that Skeptics get to much attention is the number of times their friends wrote articles attacking them. And they got much of their list of ‘Contrarians’ they think need Named and Shamed because the get to much attention from Desmog, apparently while counting Desmogs articles Naming and Shameing Skeptics as media mentions that they are getting to many of.

In an odd way I’m really glad they included the lists in their supplemental info, because if they hadn’t we probably would have never realised just how fraudulent this study really is. And they need to be called on it.


August 16, 2019 8:09 pm

what’s the difference between these people being slimed and Mann being slimed?

M Courtney
Reply to  ghalfrunt
August 16, 2019 11:38 pm

One is a journalist in the media and the other is cloaked in the trappings of a scientific journal.

And of course, even Mann knows he wasn’t slimed. He’s been ducking that court case for years because he knows he’s in the wrong.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  M Courtney
August 18, 2019 2:04 pm

M Courtney: perhaps you know that the very gutty Steyn has locked Mann into the suit! He countersued for $20M+. If Mann tries to back out now, then Steyn’s suit goes forward anyway. Many of us who know Mark Steyn by reputation actually advised Mann at the outset here on WUWT he didn’t know what he was getting himself into!

Steyn was brought before Canada’s kangaroo court, The Human Rights Tribunal by Canada’s Muslim Council for an article in a news magazine “MacLeans” with most of the press and liberal and left against him. The upshot was aquital, recinding of the federal Hate Speech Statutes and an award for his activism for free speech! (Justin Trudeau predictably reinstated and reinforced the Statute.)

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  ghalfrunt
August 17, 2019 1:06 am

Mann is slime?

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
August 18, 2019 1:25 pm

Depends on your view of ‘State Pen’ v ‘Penn State’ for the Mr Mann. IMO a comfortable sanatorium is like Penn State, a nether-world where reality rarely invades the imaginings of it’s inmates.

August 16, 2019 8:38 pm

LOL it’s too late to take down the lists. May be useful as a who’s who checklist ☺
The lists are actually CSV (comma separated value) files, straight from Excel or something, so may be handy for reconstructing their method (if there is anything identifiable as a method). Some inconsistency in formatting is evident; integers and 10 significant digits in the same field.

Sueem Blue
August 16, 2019 9:23 pm

The previous post on this issue was by Lord Moncton and was from his personal and British/European perspective. It is worth noting that UC Merced is an US institution and that many of the libelled individuals are US citizens. Thus this is also an issue of US law.

By my reading of the Nature article, the authors (American) issued threats as well as libellous language (with clear intention to cause harm to the named individuals). Both are actionable under US law.

I am not a lawyer, but I suggest that those who were harmed by this article seek legal redress, including but not limited to monetary compensation for damages. That prospective outcome ought to attract quite a few attorneys.

August 16, 2019 9:43 pm

Should litigation prove the only recourse, I shall surely donate.

Mike Ozanne
August 16, 2019 9:56 pm

Well I was raised in a military family around the rude licentious soldiery and “ticked off” doesn’t do it for me…

Objectively I would say that perverting the forms of science in this way is reminiscent of Stalinist oppression where dissidents had to not only be wrong they had to be mad…

Subjectively when it’s considered what could be done to “fix” the symptoms being exhibited, the apposite assessment was made by a character in Game of Thrones..:

August 16, 2019 11:42 pm

There may be some legal surprises coming. Nature Communications would be nuts not to retract this abysmal paper immediately, in toto.

Heather Brown
August 17, 2019 1:52 am

I’m another who will willingly contribute to any fund to sue the journal/authors – and hopefully get some actual media coverage for the ‘sceptic’ side. Though I won’t be holding my breath that the BBC would report it (i’m British and get very angry with the BBC these days)

Rod Evans
Reply to  Heather Brown
August 17, 2019 4:33 am

Heather, join the realists and just ignore the BBC. I can’t remember the last time I watched the BBC news or any current affairs propaganda output of theirs.

Chris Hogg
Reply to  Heather Brown
August 17, 2019 6:19 am

+1 and +1
That such what was once a well-respected and prestigious Journal should sink so low as to publish what was close to an ‘ad hominem’ attack on those who don’t accept the mainstream view of climate change is quite appalling.

Schrodinger's Cat
Reply to  Heather Brown
August 17, 2019 10:26 am

Me too. I rarely watch the BBC now. Half of their news is biased and the other half is withheld.

August 17, 2019 2:22 am

That is what I have been trying to say here, the future of the climate debate belongs in the court rooms of the world. Let go after the media, officials who use their positions to spread the fear, anybody who could be liable. Doesn’t matter if cases are thrown out, just starting a case is a statement and a flood of them would be a statement nobody could ignore.. As you say ” in the case of Dr. Peter Ridd, we raised over a quarter million dollars in a matters of days, and he won that case”. The way to go forward, hold them accountable for what they did in a courtroom.

August 17, 2019 2:22 am


I would draw your and Lord Monckton’s attention to a paper by Lewindowsky in which he explains the tactic of intentionally making a huge lie … because even if the lie has to be retracted the press and media are only interested in the first initial lie and won’t tell the public about the retraction.

It is about time this repeated and known libel of “climate change denier” was taken to court and exposed for the malicious lie it is.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
August 17, 2019 4:04 am

Spot on Mike. This is exactly their intention. The leftist misinformation engine lives by the old saw that a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.

They have taken to the standard practice manufacturing deliberate lies for the propaganda ministry to disseminate. Then when the inevitable “oops never mind” follows, the media goes into silent running mode. Voila the lie is out there an uncontested.

The unassuming public now believes what isn’t true. It is time to sue.

Shane Gresinger
August 17, 2019 3:02 am

I think they should just sue them…
Sort this put once and for ever and I bet they will never do it again.

August 17, 2019 3:02 am

I await Greta s comments on this…
if the boat doesnt sink meantime
Im sure her “climate emergency” claims also prove to be totally without PROOF just hearsay and msm blowups
which would also fall over in a court.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  ozspeaksup
August 17, 2019 12:13 pm

I have never heard her recite one single specific fact.
She speaks in generalities and ominous warnings.
She does not want people to think, or understand, or anything like that.
She says exactly what she wants: “I want everyone to panic, so you will feel the fear that I feel every day.”
And apparently she is not reassured by those who surround her, in order to assuage these feelings.
She is encouraged to do whatever she can to reinforce and spread her dreadful emotional state.
Of course, no one has ever panicked because someone deadpanned a plea for them to do so.
And nothing ever got done more effectively by people in any sort of agitated emotional state, that involves the part of the brain that handles complex decision making ad planning, the so called executive functions, handled by the cerebral cortex.
Panic turns off this part of the brain, exactly the wrong thing to do in a planetary emergency.


Steven Fraser
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 17, 2019 5:23 pm


Interestingly, she tweeted today that she is eating and sleeping well, and compared it to living on a roller coaster. She also posted a picture, which showed an honest, youthful smile and a happy face to go with it.

My take-away… she is having an adventure away from home, away from parents, and liking it.

Ed MacAulay
Reply to  Steven Fraser
August 17, 2019 6:02 pm

Not quite, Papa is with her as reported at
“The 16-year-old Greta and her father set sail last Wednesday afternoon on board the ocean-going yacht Malizia II with two sailors and a publicity filmmaker.”

Reply to  Ed MacAulay
August 18, 2019 11:50 am

At least Mommy Dearest is no longer hovering over her shoulder.


Richard S Courtney
Reply to  ozspeaksup
August 18, 2019 12:19 am


The feting of little Greta is reminiscent of Joan d’Arc which did not end well for Joan. It is a matter of great sadness to me that the similar feting of little Greta demonstrates we have failed to value the Enlightenment.


August 17, 2019 5:48 am

Isn’t this the same as DOXING? This seems to have been done with the intent of causing harm to those on the “contarian” list.

“Doxing (dropping docs or doc-dropping, sometimes also spelled doxxing) is the practice of revealing personally identifying information (such as names, addresses, places of employment, relatives, etc.) of people who use the Internet, typically in a highly public manner as a call to arms against the target.”

Michael Jankowski
August 17, 2019 8:52 am

The grand conclusion that skeptics get fair media attention looks evsn more silly when one of the warmistas on the list is Stephen Schneider who has been dead for almost 9 years.

August 17, 2019 9:38 am

I eagerly await the Go Fund Me campaign.

Frank Clemente
Reply to  WBWilson
August 17, 2019 1:41 pm

I was one of the scholars libeled and I never wrote one word on climate change or global warming. I’ll join any lawsuit against this data falsification . Frank Clemente–Penn State

Reply to  Frank Clemente
August 17, 2019 2:35 pm

I don’t understand how to use the SI data well, but I see this from Jude Clemente:

sl:nature-386-si$ grep -i Clemente MediaCloud_CCC-AND-CCS-MERGED_58791.txt ,en,Forbes,1104,390761450,Restricting Energy Options in India is Wickedly Cruel,2015-10-25

Pretty interesting article, and definitely from that Jude dude….

August 17, 2019 1:34 pm

Shoddy paper, I have been blogging 173 posts for twelve years and I am not on the list.

August 17, 2019 2:27 pm

Even normally reserved climate scientist Dr. Richard Betts is calling for this article to be retracted:

The paper’s Figure 2 is still there as is the external link – it lists the top 100 CCSes (“real” scientists)

It shows Richard Betts in the #27 spot.

BTW, Roy Spencer noted that Scott Denning is on the contrarian list. That appears to be due to his talks at ICCC conference. Yes, there are CCSes who speak at ICCCs! (Scott noted he is not a “warmist,” though, and that he’s not the enemy. I agree with that.)

sl:nature-386-si$ grep -i denning MediaCloud_CCC-AND-CCS-MERGED_58791.txt ,en,YouTube,18362,338685758,Scott Denning Speaks at International Conference on Climate Change,2010-5-20 ,en,,20793,333762364;333762364;333762364;333762364;333762364;333762364;333762364,Spencer-Denning Debate Highlights Heartland Climate Conference | Heartland Institute,2012-5-4

James Bull
August 18, 2019 12:52 am

Anthony you said

“I may very well join Monckton in starting a legal battle over this paper, in the case of Dr. Peter Ridd, we raised over a quarter million dollars in a matters of days, and he won that case”.

Not wanting to blow my own trumpet as it were I was in to help Peter and I’d be in as well if you did decide enough was enough and went for the legal stuff.

James Bull

August 18, 2019 1:11 pm

This Nature piece may encourage other publishers/publications to do the same, thus making it obvious for all to see, that the science publication fraternity is just a cover for a cartel of misguided advocacy dolts, populated by consensus enforcers.
Let them show themselves as closed-minded and to that end allow Mann, Trenberth, et al., and William Connelly as chief editor, lead a team that approves or vetoes all papers pertaining to climate by all major science publishers. Let them glory in their anti-science bias.
Let these consensus led publications destroy the many years it took to build trust; trust in honest, open, innovative, objective and verified science.
IMO it may have to get so much worse before it gets better.
After that and from the ashes of today’s science publishing dark and sordid times, there may arise a better, more open, honest, and not overly consensual publishing paradigm, eventually.

Brian R Catt
August 19, 2019 11:24 am

I suggest they will not dare got to court. Here’s why.

In all my readings I do recall someone writing the obvious, it wasn’t in Latin so it wasn’t Monkton, and the ,ogic was much simpler. That climate change based legal actions must be avoided by the alarmists, because they have only their consensual opinion of a guessed prediction of a future catastrophe to support their position, and a very minor catastrophe at that, even per the IPCC, and the skeptics have nothing but natural measurements and proven applied physics that deny this. e.g the alarmist prediction is disproven by the available evidence..

In court a successful defence or prosecution will prefer hard evidence, failing that circumstantial evidence, and if you have neither, ad hom attack the opposition witnesses credibility. Legal practice 101. This offers diminishing orders of success, because your approach also says a lot about the quality your case. One of the reasons John Christy keeps presenting reality to the Senate, on the record, for the reckoning that must come when the laws of physics and real sceptical science method makes itself clear.

The single obvious reason organised alarmists have never got beyond the ad hom attacks on reasoned challenges to the predictions of their theoretical models, and who rely on non expert celebrity to promote their unsupportable predictions, is precisely because they are not happening, so they have no evidence to challenge the facts directly, or even circumstantially. And they can never sustain a logical attack on their insubstantial beliefs and prophesies against the evidence and the laws of physics, partly because in the end they are not that bright and cannot argue the hard science case. So they must lose what is a wholly unwinnable battle IF the case is rigorously considered, by an impartial and informed judge, who can understand the simple core issues of independently validatable science method, and also knows how to tell shit from shinola.

I submit this has been the case in courts considering these issues to date? The problem is the whole facade is designed to make people inside the renewable rackets very rich, so they have a LOT of money to defend and misdirect, while the honest expert scientists have only their pensions and independence from the bought Universities and government departments behind the state organised crime of the climate change protection racket.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights